I became privy to the letter sent by the Anguilla United Front to Reverend Dr Clifton Niles dated 23rd February 2012 when the same was read in the Press just a day or so ago. I have no doubt that the competent Reverend Niles will prepare a response, but given that I knew that said letter would be published in this week’s newspaper, I felt constrained to react to the said letter. I feel so constrained for four reasons:
(i) The letter from the Front is being published during the week of the birthday of Ronald Webster, the Father of the Nation;
(ii) The letter is being published just days prior to the visit of certain Royal members to our shores;
(iii) The letter is meant to reject the concept of self-determination as an option forAnguilla’s constitutional status; and
(iv) This being the final publication of this newspaper during Black History Month, the combination of those items listed (i) to (iii) above just begged the question of us here inAnguillaas it relates to our Pride as a People.
Let me be clear – I write this letter in my own personal capacity and simply as an Anguillian who feels insulted to think that the concepts of subservience to a Colonial master and the inferiorities of an Oppressed people which are some of the elements of slavery and colonialism, still wraps like a noose around the necks of a group of people who continue to seek office to represent us the People of Anguilla.
I will try to be brief and condense my thoughts as I am simply praying on the good nature of the Editor of the newspaper for this space.
An examination of the first point of the letter (hereinafter the “Front Letter”) in essence sets out that that the provisions of the Draft Constitution reflect the concept of full internal self government; that other Overseas Territories have accepted that they would not have been given that status; and that based on certain utterances from the UK Government, it is unlikely that any Anguilla Constitution based on “full internal self-government” will be accepted by them. Therefore this constitutes a reason why they – the Front- will no longer be participating on the Constitutional committee.
My reaction? Those slaves during Slavery who would say “What you goin’ askMassaa question for? You know Massa ain’t goin’ listen you”….and picture for a moment our Black forefathers, cap in hand, forbidden to even look Massa in the eye….because Massa has told all the others who are enslaved they will not get their partial freedom and so we in Anguilla shouldn’t even dare ask Massa for ours.
Is Colonialism so embedded in our psyche, are we so beaten down by the Colonial master that our Pride as a People – a Black People – has been reduced to dust? While the Front has no difficulty in telling their Children that they never even tried to free them from colonialism, never even tried to restore their dignity, it is important that that kind of thinking never be allowed to raise its ugly head and should be squashed each and every time it surfaces.
Every Territory that has so far engaged in Constitutional Advancement has obviously fought for and received what they felt they were content to accept. The Constitution that each of those Territories has, is consistent with the type of agitation they put forward and accounts for the fact that while each of the Constitutions may be similar, they are not identical. We the People of Anguilla will have to decide what will be the nature of our agitation – how strong will be our fight; how badly enough we wish the right to make our own decisions about our Country while still having the umbrella of being British; we will have to decide how deeply we feel about the state and nature of the power that the Governor wields in our present Constitution and how subservient our Constitution is to one Man. The Constitution that we will get will be demonstrative of the type of struggle that we launch. But I encourage our People to step away from the slave mentality of the Front and adopt the thinking that “It is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all”.
The 2nd point in the Front letter is that they claim to support the idea of internal self government and in their words “had discussions with the late Dame Bernice Lake on crafting a constitution to achieve this” but believe that because of the “clear boundaries” set by the UK Government, a document that reflects full internal self-government would be “unnecessarily confrontational”. The one thing that disappoints in that whole paragraph, is the fact that the Front would use the name of Dame Bernice QC in a sentence that demonstrates nothing but cowardice and “lacky-ism” when the nature of the person to whom they refer was the epitome of a fire-brand who bucked every boundary – perceived or real – that she felt strangled the advancement of the liberty of the individual, especially on constitutional matters. I wish to remind the brethren of the Front that in the circumstances where the struggle is about the Dignity of us as a People, there is no room for submission. Slavery didn’t end because of submission to the clear boundaries of the Slave Master – it ended among other things because Black People refused to accept the status quo – they preferred the route of struggle – struggle and confrontation – to bring Dignity to their Person and a future of Pride for their Children. To return to the days of acceptance of “clear boundaries” set by a Colonial Master and to urge that we not be “unnecessarily confrontational” does not do justice to the memory of those Kunta Kinte’s whose backs carry the stripes of being confrontational for the freedoms that we know of today.
The 3rd and 4th point in the Front letter can be treated together as in essence they indicate that a constitution based on full internal self government will lead to the “usual and unnecessary confrontation between the Chief Minister and …the UK Government” and that the UK has said that if we want self-determination we can opt for independence; that therefore we have 2 options – enhancing the present constitution or independence. The Front’s conclusion is that therefore there should not be any tension because based on those 2 options, either we remain in the current framework or we draft an independence constitution and not a constitution based on self-determination. Honestly – it would seem to me when listening to these premises put forward by the Front, it is almost as though the British Government gave them a script to read to the un-informed masses because typically when the Colonial master wants to get his message across, it is important that they find a receptacle that ‘looks’ like the masses so that we can all drink of the same cup. To the Members of the Front and the British Government whom the Front by these writings seem to support – I say – luckily Education is not reserved for the Select Few and we the masses can read and are familiar with Resolution 1541(XV) of 1961 from the General Assembly of the United Nations. We know that the options open to us are not just remaining as we are or seeking independence. We know the option of full internal self-government or Free Association IS AN OPTION and if it is the Will of the People of Anguilla – We will pursue it to the fullest degree. Thank God for the “usual” confrontation between the Chief Minister and the UK Government, because the UK Government must know and continue to know at each and every turn, that Anguillians were never the regular ‘slaves’ – We are a People that peacefully fought for and achieved the Freedom that we wanted and we have no difficulty in fighting again for an Anguilla we love.
The last point of the Front’s letter is that this Government should not focus on the constitution but focus on economic stability since focusing on the Constitution will only create controversy and damage our tourism product and investment opportunities. This is exactly the mentality that Mrs Daniella Jeffry, Mr Robert Hall andMrWhaldemarBrooks(Ras B) all reflected on in the recently concluded Forum brought by ‘On the Spot’. Here is the Front seeking to encourage the People of Anguilla to take their eye off the prize of dealing with our Constitution which is the one document that will dictate whether the same tourism product they say should be the focus, will be one exploited by Foreigners or Anguillians; a document that will dictate whether a Governor can continue to influence whether Anguillians are the ones to benefit from the same ‘investment opportunities’ they refer to, or whether through the Governor’s desire to take over our immigration processes, Foreigners will get the greater advantages. While we are thankful for the repair work done to our Treasury after the Front administration left it dry as a bone, the Front should refrain from sleight of hand in trying to take away the attention of the People of Anguilla from this critical process. Anguillians know how to multi-task and we will do just that.
I just felt the need to react to this Front Letter because I see it as so unfortunate – maybe even planned – that this Front Letter emanates and is published the week of Mr Ronald Webster’s birthday – the week when we pay particular honour and tribute to a Man that stood at the forefront together with a band of men and women in fighting for Anguilla’s Dignity – who broke from the Oppression stemming from Colonialism and who rejected the concept of accepting “clear boundaries”. Through his work and the sameDameBerniceLakeQC,Anguilla’s revolution resulted in the framing of a Constitution that captured the Self-Worth of a People who demonstrated their Pride not to accept narrow options – but fight for options that embraced the full measure of a Free People. Today, Mr Webster must be disappointed that some of the same People that he groomed are now rejecting a principle of self-determination which he asserted over 40 years ago for the People of Anguilla.
I wish to say to Mr Webster that thankfully the Front only speaks for the Front and not the majority of Anguillians. Not only does the Front Letter demonstrate the reason why the Anguilla United Front administration could not find it in their heart to honour you as Our Revolutionary Leader with a full holiday – it also shows that they dishonor the very principles that you stood for – the rights of self-determination and the principles of Dignity of the person that you and our Revolutionary Heroes and Heroines fought for. It is because of that fight there is a Pride that we the generation coming after, have in calling ourselves Anguillians. I also observe – perhaps planned – that the Front has chosen to dishonor you, our Father of the Nation, at a time when certain British Royalty are to be on our shores, as if to say We the Front continue to embrace you, Royalty, and Disregard our very own. That is the true essence of Colonialism.
But your Highnesses Earl and Countess of Wessex, if perchance you open the newspaper to see what your Subjects are about, I trust you will by this Article know, that there are those Anguillians who will Struggle, who will Confront, who will Reject any clear boundaries of a Colonial Power that seeks to rob us of our Dignity and Worth as a People – a Free Black People, Proud, Strong, Resilient.
Josephine A G Gumbs-Connor
(Published without editing by The Anguillian newspaper.)
